250 likes | 372 Views
Chapter 3. Part II. Recap - Formal Hearings. Expensive and time-consuming Trial procedure Too many parties Almost always derail agency action Magic words are not necessary, but the congressional intent must be clear for a court to order a forma hearing Almost never used.
E N D
Chapter 3 Part II
Recap - Formal Hearings • Expensive and time-consuming • Trial procedure • Too many parties • Almost always derail agency action • Magic words are not necessary, but the congressional intent must be clear for a court to order a forma hearing • Almost never used
Comparative Hearings • What is two or more people want the same benefit?
Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC • What must the agency do if there are competing applications for a single license or permit? • Comparative hearings • Multiple parties, one permit • Multiple permits, but only one can be economically viable
Certificate of Need Example • Public Law 93-641 set up the process • Health care is not a competitive business, so more hospital beds and capital equipment results in higher prices • Required health care facilities to get a permit before making major capital expansions • Competing applications were bundled • Not a success in many states, esp. LA
Legislative v. Adjudicative Facts • Why does this distinction matter? • What is the difference? • How is this like Londoner and Bimetallic?
Metsch v. University of Florida - 95 • What does plaintiff want? • Would a hearing help improve the accuracy of the decision? • Why does he claim he was entitled to a hearing under the Florida APA? • What does subsection (5) exempt? • Why does plaintiff claim it does not apply to him? • Does his desire to go to law school meet the substantial interest test? • What is nature of the LSAT/GPA Index?
Using Rules to Create Legislative Facts for Adjudications • Perhaps the most important role of rulemaking • Allows the agency to limit the issues that are subject to a hearing at the agency level • As we will see later in the rulemaking section, a properly promulgated rule will also limit the issues that can be appealed when a court reviews the agency action
Heckler v. Campbell • Regulation concerned how to decide if a claimant can do an alternative job • How was this done before the regulation? • What does the regulation do? • What was plaintiff’s claim?
The Courts • The circuit court reversed • The guidelines did not provide the specific evidence that the old system had provided • Plaintiff was denied the right to show that she could not do the work • SSI was not required to show that the jobs were actually available • What did the United States Supreme Court hold?
Contrast with Sullivan v. Zebley • Regulation limited benefits for disabled children to a set list of 182 medical conditions • Why did plaintiff say this was not allowed by the statute? • Statute said comparable to adult determinations • How was this different from the adult determinations?
Rules to Narrow Adjudications • How does the holding in in Heckler simplify adjudications? • What was the safety valve? • Is this constitutionally necessary? • Is this better than having a formal process for the claimant to request a waiver?
Rules Can Establish Presumptions • Rulemaking can not be used to determine individualized factors, only general rules • NLRB used a rule to establish the criteria for collective bargaining units in hospitals • Hospital association contested this, saying the law required individualized decisionmaking • United States Supreme Court said that the agency could use the rule to establish standards which were used in individual cases
Lopez v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 714 (2001) • Upholds Bureau of Prisons regulation that categorically denied early release to prisoners who had been convicted of drug trafficking while in possession of a firearm • How does this affect their good time? • Should they get a hearing? • What does Heckler tell us? • What would you argue is different here?
Agency Summary Judgment - Weinberger v. Hynson • FDA effectiveness review of drugs already on the market • Why is this a big problem? • FDA sets review criteria • Manufacturer must show a "real issue of fact" • What is the Matthews analysis? • Still a big problem for medical devices
Right to an Evidentiary Hearing • First - is there a statutory right to a hearing in every case? • If so, then you get a hearing • If not, then the agency can require proof of a dispute in facts • What do you have to plead to get a hearing? • How does the new welfare act change the Goldberg right to a hearing in all cases?
Adlaw and the New Deal Mostly historical value, but the basic principles are still important
Switch in Time Saves Nine • United States Supreme Court attacked the core of the New Deal • How far can commerce clause regulation go? • How much power can you grant to an agency? • Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding new justices to the Court until he got a majority • Court blinked and the constitutional crises was averted
Morgan I • Statute required a formal rulemaking • Looks like a formal adjudication • The Secretary had the power to make the decision • Plaintiffs' submitted written briefs to the agency • Asst. Secretary conducted the hearing and made recommendations to the secretary • Secretary made the decision based on the recommendations
How is this Different from a Trial? • What did plaintiffs claim about the Secretary's decision? • Did the court allow the Secretary to make the decision if he did not conduct the hearing? • What did it require him to do? • Why would this be a problem in a modern cabinet level agency?
What can the Secretary Do? • Delegate the right to decide • Not always permitted • Adjudications often make policy, which the secretary should control • Make the hearing officer's decision final after 30 and intervene if the case is important to policy • Set up an internal appeal process to flag important cases • Decide the case on an executive summary
Intermediate reports • Must the hearing officer prepare a recommended decision? • Must that be available to the parties before the secretary decides? • Why is this important to the parties?
Morgan II • No formal hearing requirement • Hearing examiner does not prepare a report, just sends on the record • Other agency personnel talk to the Secretary about the case • Court says a report is required if not having one would work an injustice • When would not having a report be a problem?
Witnesses in Informal Hearings • Why is witness credibility a special problem when the hearing officer is not the decisionmaker? • How must the agency handle this? • Why is witness credibility less of an issue in adlaw proceedings than in civil and criminal trials?
Matter of Kansas Faculty • Board members rejected recommendation of hearing officer, but then decided without reviewing the record • Court said that they do have to look at it if they are not going with the recommendations • Generally the courts presume they did review the stuff • In this case the court allowed interrogatories • Generally no discovery - discussed later